STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ODISHA, CUTTACK
FIRST APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2015
(From an order dated 28.4.2015 passed by the District Forum, Nabarangpur in C.C. no. 08 of 2015)
M/s Proprietor, Bhanwarlal & Bros,
Represented through its Proprietor
Mr Mahaveer Jain,
At – Main Road, Jeypore,
Dist – Koraput
… Appellant
Vrs.
`1. Sri Simanchal Nayak,
S/o late Arjun Nayak,
At – Ichabatiguda,
Po/Ps/Dist – Nabarangpur
2. M/s Proprietor, M.K.Textiles,
D No.4102, 6.30 Blouse
Exclusive Designer Sarees,
C – 3500, Kohinoor Market,
Surat
3. Commercial Tax Officer,
Koraput Circle, At – Jeypore,
Dist – Koraput
… Respondents
_____________
For the appellant : M/s R.K.Pattnaik & Associates
For the respondent : None
_______________
P R E S E N T:
THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.N.BISWAL, PRESIDENT,
SHRI G.P.SAHOO, MEMBER
AND
SMT.SMARITA MOHANTY, MEMBER
DATED THE 31st MARCH, 2017
O R D E R
SMT.SMARITA MOHANTY, MEMBER
The present appeal is directed against order dated 28.4.2015 passed by learned District Forum, Nabarangpur in C.C.no. 08 of 2015.
The brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased 5 numbers of garment items, i.e., 2 numbers of shirt, 1 pant and 2 numbers of sarees on 15.12.2014 from opposite party no. 1 for the purpose of gift in a marriage ceremony of his sister-in-law. It was alleged that the two number of sarees were found to be defective. It was alleged that opposite party no. 1 did not issue cash memo against the said purchase. Complainant visited his shop time and again but his staff refused to issue the same. Complainant approached opposite party no. 1 with defective sarees and requested to exchange the same, but opposite party no. 1 refused to do so. Finding no other way, complainant approached opposite party no. 2 being the manufacturer of the sarees over phone but of no avail. Hence, there is deficiency of service by the opposite parties. Complainant therefore, prayed for direction to opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation and litigation cost in place of the defective sarees.
After notice, opposite parties 1 and 3 appeared and filed written version. Opposite party no. 2 neither appeared nor filed any written version.
Opposite party no. 1 denying all the allegations made by complainant contended that he has been running the business for last 60 years in the name and style of ‘Bhanwarlal & Brothers’ with good reputation. It was contended that due to defect in the billing machine opposite party used to issue hand written receipt. It was contended that complainant has never purchased any saree form him. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Opposite party no. 3 filed written version along with documents and contended that he visited opposite party no. 1 business centre along with his colleagues and verified the issuing invoices given to customer of the dealer M/s Bhanwarlal & Brothers, a registered dealer of Koraput Circle, bearing TIN no. 21371600004 on 19.2.2015. He could not find any invoice of Rs.1,785/- and Rs.720/- of the alleged sarees. Opposite party no. 3 demanded sales and purchase details from opposite party no. 1. After verification of the same opposite party no. 3 could not find any negligence or irregularity on the part of opposite party no. 1. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the case.
After hearing the parties learned District Forum allowed the complaint as against opposite party no. 1 with cost. Opposite party no.1 was directed to pay the price of the alleged two sarees i.e., Rs.1,785/- and Rs.720/- totalling to Rs.2,505/- to complainant. Besides opposite party no. 1 was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation inter alia to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to complainant. The above directions to be complied within 30 days of the order failing which the total sum will carry 12% interest per annum form the date of filing of the case till its realisation.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order appellant (oppose party no. 1 in the Forum below) filed the present appeal before this Commission on the grounds that the aforesaid defective sarees were not sold to the respondent no. 1. This District Forum should have dismissed the Consumer Complaint in absence of any documentary prove. Thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
We heard Mr R.K.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 on call.
We perused the record, impugned judgment and order as well as the LCR.
On perusal of record, it is found that respondent no. 1 had purchased two number of sarees on 15.12.2014 from opposite party no. 1 for Rs.1,785/- and Rs.720/- which is evident from the stickers of the said sarees available on record. The sale report adduced by appellant on demand of respondent no.3 does not reflect the two sarees sold to respondent no. 1. Further, it is admitted by opposite party no. 1 that the billing machine was not working on the date of purchase i.e., 15.12.2014 by respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 has repeatedly asked for cash memo but appellant was reluctant to issue the same.
From the above observations, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency for service on the part of appellant and appellant is liable to refund the amount paid by respondent no. 1 for the purchase of two number of defective sarees.
In view of the above, appellant is liable to refund Rs.1,785/- and Rs.720/- in total Rs.2,505/- to respondent no. 1 and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and cost.
In the result, appeal is dismissed modifying the order dated 28.4.2015 passed by learned District Forum, Nabarangpur in C.C.no. 08 of 2015.
Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.
